AF Holdings is one of several shell companies linked to Prenda Law, which threatened thousands of Internet users with lawsuits over downloading pornography. Now Prenda's on the ropes and the key lawyers behind it have been hit with a tough sanctions order telling them to pay $81,000. They haven't paid, and now those sanctions are growing at a rate of $1,000 per day, per person.

Another nail in Prenda's coffin has been hammered down today. AF Holdings was ordered to pay $9,425 in attorney's fees to Nick Ranallo, a defense lawyer working on several Prenda defense cases. That's exactly what Ranallo asked for in his March motion requesting fees be paid, plus an extra $1,000 for drafting a later document.

The order by US District Judge Charles Breyer isn't in the public docket yet, but the outcome was tweeted by Kurt Opsahl, an Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyer who observed the hearing. Prenda lawyer Paul Duffy was allowed to appear at the hearing by telephone.

"I'm obviously pleased with the outcome and look forward to the collections process," Ranallo told Ars via email. "The award recognizes the important role played by defendants, like Mr. Trinh, who choose to stand up for their principles and defend their innocence rather than give in to [the] cost of defense settlements."

In a brief interview, Opsahl told Ars the judge was "businesslike" during the short hearing, only asking whether the Wright sanctions order had been appealed (it has). Duffy then spent some time arguing that the amount of sanctions was too high, as Ranallo could use similar arguments in his other cases.

"For what it's worth, $9,400 for the amount of work Ranallo put in was a bargain," opined Opsahl. "Any major law firm would have charged three or four times that amount, and the court probably wouldn't have batted an eye."

The question, of course, will be whether Ranallo can collect any of the fees. The Prenda-linked shell companies were likely set up to hold little or no cash. Prenda mastermind John Steele said in an interview with Ars that he gets a "flat fee" from certain Prenda-linked companies, although not from AF Holdings.

This case, AF Holdings v. Trinh, was originally filed (PDF) in May 2012. The copyright assignment was signed by Alan Cooper, Steele's former housekeeper. Cooper was presented as an officer of AF Holdings, but he claimed he never signed the papers and that his identity was stolen. Now Prenda says AF Holdings is owned by Mark Lutz, Steele's former paralegal.

This really wasn't that close a call, in my mind. Under 17 USC 505, the "prevailing party" in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees. This was litigated and has been the law of the land since Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

"For what its worth, $9,400 for the amount of work Ranallo put in was a bargain," opined Opsahl. "Any major law firm would have charged three or four times that amount, and the court probably wouldn't have batted an eye."

Seriously. I deal with the invoices for our outside counsel on a daily basis, and it costs us a good $30,000 just for a firm to tell us we're doing okay. Clearly Mr. Ranallo should have done a bit more research and made a few more copies. You know, just to make sure.

I'll believe that when I see a signed/notarized/certified report from a real doctor.

No kidding. These folks strike me as the type that would fake some physical impairment so that they could compete in the Special Olympics. They'd certainly go further to keep from paying their just dues. I trust this guy about as far as I could throw an ocean liner.

I wouldn't put it past him to claim that there is less than $500 in "his" account, but in his wife's account there is plenty of money.

In cases where people plead poverty to the court, the court can require that they submit copies of tax returns and other financial documents, show proof of how they're paying their living expenses, etc. I suspect that someone who's demonstrated such moral bankruptcy as Gibbs is not above trying to mislead the court about his own personal finances. I wouldn't be surprised if Judge Wright says "you should have thought of that before filing these cases...." or something to that effect.

What I find interesting is his assertion that he lost his job at a law firm because he was diagnosed with brain cancer. That happened to a guy at a firm I worked at and he went on long-term disability at a large percentage of his annual salary. He's still alive and remains stable after 10 years, or so, and is receiving about $160k/yr (tax-free, as I recall, but I'm not sure about that). Also, doesn't he have a cause of action against his former employer if they terminated him based on his medical condition? For someone as litigious as Gibbs, why didn't he sue?

Judge Wright and all these judges are ganging up on poor Prenda. The judges are brazenly biased against Prenda.

Why should sitting judges be allowed to have an obvious bias against committing fraud upon the court while simultaneously using the courts as a mere tool in order to obtain contact information for sending 'settlement' shakedown extortion letters while having no intention to ever litigate?

These judges are also biased against stealing people's identities and forming a web of shell corporations.

How can the rats in a criminal enterprise get a fair trial before a judge that is so biased against criminal activity?

I'll believe that when I see a signed/notarized/certified report from a real doctor.

I'm not sure if I would believe it even then. Who is this doctor? Why are they willing to certify anything about anyone associated with Prenda? Is there a legitimate reason? Does the doctor have an actual license to practice medicine? In what state? Does the doctor's signature resemble the handwriting of the alleged 'Alan Cooper' signature or 'Salt Marsh'?

Gibbs needs to stop telling lies, which make him very difficult to believe even when he does say something true.

To be credible, he needs to take some substantial actions as an officer of the court to uncover details of the Prenda extortion racket. The first one would be to deliver a full description of everything he knows in extremely fine detail, to be accepted only after carefully checked for even one new lie.

Even then, he had better hope he has enough on the other Prenda criminals to justify mitigation of punishment for his past actions.

I'm not sure if I would believe it even then. Who is this doctor? Why are they willing to certify anything about anyone associated with Prenda? Is there a legitimate reason? Does the doctor have an actual license to practice medicine? In what state? Does the doctor's signature resemble the handwriting of the alleged 'Alan Cooper' signature or 'Salt Marsh'?

The Hippocratic oath doesn't contain an "Unless the patient is a dirtbag, in which case you can refuse to treat them for the lulz" clause.

This really wasn't that close a call, in my mind. Under 17 USC 505, the "prevailing party" in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees. This was litigated and has been the law of the land since Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

I don't believe that is the holding of Fogerty vs. Fantasy, nor is it the language of 17 U.S.C. 505. 17 U.S.C. states that a a court may award a prevailing plaintiff attorney's fees. It does not say that the prevailing party is "entitled" to attorney's fees.

Similarly, the holding of Fogerty is that In copyright suits, prevailing defendants receive attorney's fees solely at the court's discretion, just as prevailing plaintiffs do..

I believe you may be conflating the award of statutory damages if infringement is found of a work that is registered under the title of the Copyright Act with an award of attorney's fees.

This really wasn't that close a call, in my mind. Under 17 USC 505, the "prevailing party" in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees. This was litigated and has been the law of the land since Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

I don't believe that is the holding of Fogerty vs. Fantasy, nor is it the language of 17 U.S.C. 505. 17 U.S.C. states that a a court may award a prevailing plaintiff attorney's fees. It does not say that the prevailing party is "entitled" to attorney's fees.

Similarly, the holding of Fogerty is that In copyright suits, prevailing defendants receive attorney's fees solely at the court's discretion, just as prevailing plaintiffs do..

I believe you may be conflating the award of statutory damages if infringement is found of a work that is registered under the title of the Copyright Act with an award of attorney's fees.

This has nothing to do with statutory damages (nor am I conflating any such thing), but you are correct attorneys fees awards are always at the discretion of the Court. If you want to get into an actual debate about the exact holding of Fogarty, it was that a prevailing defendant could petition for attorneys fees. If you want to get into a semantic debate about the word "entitle", you can break-off into an individual discussion group. If you want to say 'may be entitled', knock yourself out. It's still a departure from typical civil cases where attorneys fees are usually only awarded in exceptional cases.

This really wasn't that close a call, in my mind. Under 17 USC 505, the "prevailing party" in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees. This was litigated and has been the law of the land since Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

I don't believe that is the holding of Fogerty vs. Fantasy, nor is it the language of 17 U.S.C. 505. 17 U.S.C. states that a a court may award a prevailing plaintiff attorney's fees. It does not say that the prevailing party is "entitled" to attorney's fees.

Similarly, the holding of Fogerty is that In copyright suits, prevailing defendants receive attorney's fees solely at the court's discretion, just as prevailing plaintiffs do..

I believe you may be conflating the award of statutory damages if infringement is found of a work that is registered under the title of the Copyright Act with an award of attorney's fees.

This has nothing to do with statutory damages (nor am I conflating any such thing), but you are correct attorneys fees awards are always at the discretion of the Court. If you want to get into an actual debate about the exact holding of Fogarty, it was that a prevailing defendant could petition for attorneys fees. If you want to get into a semantic debate about the word "entitle", you can break-off into an individual discussion group. If you want to say 'may be entitled', knock yourself out. It's still a departure from typical civil cases where attorneys fees are usually only awarded in exceptional cases.

Semantics, in this instance, mean quite a bit. As I'm sure you're aware, semantics - especially revolving around the word MAY - has caused a lot of court battles (thanks legislatures). I don't see why you're trying to sarcastically belittle some dude on the Internet for pointing out your mistake. You said that "the prevailing party in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees" (internal quotations omitted), but the fact is they aren't actually *entitled* to shit.

This really wasn't that close a call, in my mind. Under 17 USC 505, the "prevailing party" in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees. This was litigated and has been the law of the land since Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

I don't believe that is the holding of Fogerty vs. Fantasy, nor is it the language of 17 U.S.C. 505. 17 U.S.C. states that a a court may award a prevailing plaintiff attorney's fees. It does not say that the prevailing party is "entitled" to attorney's fees.

Similarly, the holding of Fogerty is that In copyright suits, prevailing defendants receive attorney's fees solely at the court's discretion, just as prevailing plaintiffs do..

I believe you may be conflating the award of statutory damages if infringement is found of a work that is registered under the title of the Copyright Act with an award of attorney's fees.

This has nothing to do with statutory damages (nor am I conflating any such thing), but you are correct attorneys fees awards are always at the discretion of the Court. If you want to get into an actual debate about the exact holding of Fogarty, it was that a prevailing defendant could petition for attorneys fees. If you want to get into a semantic debate about the word "entitle", you can break-off into an individual discussion group. If you want to say 'may be entitled', knock yourself out. It's still a departure from typical civil cases where attorneys fees are usually only awarded in exceptional cases.

Semantics, in this instance, mean quite a bit. As I'm sure you're aware, semantics - especially revolving around the word MAY - has caused a lot of court battles (thanks legislatures). I don't see why you're trying to sarcastically belittle some dude on the Internet for pointing out your mistake. You said that "the prevailing party in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees" (internal quotations omitted), but the fact is they aren't actually *entitled* to shit.

I think you might be a little overboard here... I stated where he was correct. Being overly semantic on a message forum doesn't account for the fact that people may not write with the same level of precision on a message forum that they do in a legal brief. Nothing in the semantics of this discussion amount to a hill of beans. However, you're mistaken if you assert that the prevailing party isn't "entitled to shit". In copyright cases, the prevailing party may get their attorneys fees (which as I pointed out earlier is different from the typical case where attorneys fees are only awarded in exceptional cases.) That's the difference. The exact text of 17 USC 505 is quote, below. Is it cut and dry? No. There has been a lot of case law surrounding the definition of "prevailing party" (does it require an adjudication on the merits? What about gaining dismissal on procedural grounds? All of that it beyond the scope of this comment thread, but you're more than encourage to research it if you're interested.)

Quote:

In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

This really wasn't that close a call, in my mind. Under 17 USC 505, the "prevailing party" in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees. This was litigated and has been the law of the land since Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994).

I don't believe that is the holding of Fogerty vs. Fantasy, nor is it the language of 17 U.S.C. 505. 17 U.S.C. states that a a court may award a prevailing plaintiff attorney's fees. It does not say that the prevailing party is "entitled" to attorney's fees.

Similarly, the holding of Fogerty is that In copyright suits, prevailing defendants receive attorney's fees solely at the court's discretion, just as prevailing plaintiffs do..

I believe you may be conflating the award of statutory damages if infringement is found of a work that is registered under the title of the Copyright Act with an award of attorney's fees.

This has nothing to do with statutory damages (nor am I conflating any such thing), but you are correct attorneys fees awards are always at the discretion of the Court. If you want to get into an actual debate about the exact holding of Fogarty, it was that a prevailing defendant could petition for attorneys fees. If you want to get into a semantic debate about the word "entitle", you can break-off into an individual discussion group. If you want to say 'may be entitled', knock yourself out. It's still a departure from typical civil cases where attorneys fees are usually only awarded in exceptional cases.

Semantics, in this instance, mean quite a bit. As I'm sure you're aware, semantics - especially revolving around the word MAY - has caused a lot of court battles (thanks legislatures). I don't see why you're trying to sarcastically belittle some dude on the Internet for pointing out your mistake. You said that "the prevailing party in a copyright action is entitled to attorneys fees" (internal quotations omitted), but the fact is they aren't actually *entitled* to shit.

I think you might be a little overboard here... I stated where he was correct. Being overly semantic on a message forum doesn't account for the fact that people may not write with the same level of precision on a message forum that they do in a legal brief. Nothing in the semantics of this discussion amount to a hill of beans. However, you're mistaken if you assert that the prevailing party isn't "entitled to shit". In copyright cases, the prevailing party may get their attorneys fees (which as I pointed out earlier is different from the typical case where attorneys fees are only awarded in exceptional cases.) That's the difference. The exact text of 17 USC 505 is quote, below. Is it cut and dry? No. There has been a lot of case law surrounding the definition of "prevailing party" (does it require an adjudication on the merits? What about gaining dismissal on procedural grounds? All of that it beyond the scope of this comment thread, but you're more than encourage to research it if you're interested.)

Quote:

In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

You just said it yourself: "MAY get their attorneys fees." As in, are not entitled to them unless the court decides as such.

Still waiting for the smug bastard (and braindead assclown) John Steele to get what he deserves... the wheels of justice are turning and crushing, pity he is ahead of the rest and it has not really started rolling over him as yet.

You just said it yourself: "MAY get their attorneys fees." As in, are not entitled to them unless the court decides as such.

Again, you're missing the point. In copyright cases, the prevailing party can get their costs and fees. In typical civil cases, you can only get attorney fees in exceptional cases. In a patent case, for example, if the defendant prevails, they can only get attorneys fees when there has been a rule 11 violation or other exceptional circumstances arise. The plaintiff can get attorneys fees if they win on the merits AND there is a finding that the infringement is "willful" (a very hard thing to do).

Long before you entered the discussion, I agreed with the commenter that pointed-out that the judge has discretion, because I erroneously used the word 'entitled' rather than the full phrase 'may be entitled'. You're free to continue to harp on that (not sure why), but you don't "win the internet" either way, since the point was that there is a difference between copyright cases (where either prevailing party can get an attorney fee award) and civil cases in general where attorneys fees are only award in exceptional cases (or under certain circumstances in patent cases).

You just said it yourself: "MAY get their attorneys fees." As in, are not entitled to them unless the court decides as such.

Again, you're missing the point. In copyright cases, the prevailing party can get their costs and fees. In typical civil cases, you can only get attorney fees in exceptional cases. In a patent case, for example, if the defendant prevails, they can only get attorneys fees when there has been a rule 11 violation or other exceptional circumstances arise. The plaintiff can get attorneys fees if they win on the merits AND there is a finding that the infringement is "willful" (a very hard thing to do).

Long before you entered the discussion, I agreed with the commenter that pointed-out that the judge has discretion, because I erroneously used the word 'entitled' rather than the full phrase 'may be entitled'. You're free to continue to harp on that (not sure why), but you don't "win the internet" either way, since the point was that there is a difference between copyright cases (where either prevailing party can get an attorney fee award) and civil cases in general where attorneys fees are only award in exceptional cases (or under certain circumstances in patent cases).

I didn't miss the point. I chose not to address it. I knew already that the court has broader discretion in awarding fees in copyright cases. I just didn't like your snarky attitude (See "If you want to get into a semantic debate about the word entitle, you can break-off into an individual discussion group. If you want to say 'may be entitled', knock yourself out.") when someone corrected your erroneous statement.

Also, we've both now posted on a message board over 3 times today. I think we've both LOST at the Internet.